Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 31 Mar 2023 09:12:58 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@sberdevices.ru>
Cc:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@bytedance.com>,
        Bryan Tan <bryantan@vmware.com>,
        Vishnu Dasa <vdasa@vmware.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@sberdevices.ru,
        oxffffaa@gmail.com, pv-drivers@vmware.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/4] vsock/vmci: convert VMCI error code to
 -ENOMEM on receive
Message-ID: <7pypi573nxgwz7vrgd2cwcrtha4abijutlsgtnxrwcgaatdjbz@cwnq5dlurfhs>
References: <4d34fac8-7170-5a3e-5043-42a9f7e4b5b3@sberdevices.ru>
 <9fd06ca5-ace9-251d-34af-aca4db9c3ee0@sberdevices.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9fd06ca5-ace9-251d-34af-aca4db9c3ee0@sberdevices.ru>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:18:36PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>
>
>On 30.03.2023 23:13, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>> This adds conversion of VMCI specific error code to general -ENOMEM. It
>> is needed, because af_vsock.c passes error value returned from transport
>> to the user, which does not expect to get VMCI_ERROR_* values.
>
>@Stefano, I have some doubts about this commit message, as it says "... af_vsock.c
>passes error value returned from transport to the user ...", but this
>behaviour is implemented only in the next patch. Is it ok, if both patches
>are in a single patchset?

Yes indeed it is not clear. In my opinion we can do one of these 2
things:

1. Update the message, where we can say that this is a preparation patch
    for the next changes where af_vsock.c will directly return transport
    values to the user, so we need to return an errno.

2. Merge this patch and patch 3 in a single patch.

Both are fine for my point of view, take your choice ;-)

Thanks,
Stefano